• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VIII

Jeffrey Sachs has declared that the JFK assassination was a CIA operation. Considering that he is a significant figure in the intellectual world, I suppose you will ignore him and explain that no one ever gave credence to anything he said or did.

It's the skeptical way.
 
Major Major said:
Jeffrey Sachs has declared that the JFK assassination was a CIA operation. Considering that he is a significant figure in the intellectual world, I suppose you will ignore him and explain that no one ever gave credence to anything he said or did.

It's the skeptical way.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the skeptical way is to require evidence, rather than credulous acceptance of something just because the person saying it is from the "intellectual world". Show us Sachs' evidence and we'll talk.

It's worth noting that Sachs has been criticized for parroting baseless conspiracy theories about the origins of COVID-19. Just because he has a Ph.D. in economics doesn't make him an expert on everything.
 
Major Major said:
Jeffrey Sachs has declared that the JFK assassination was a CIA operation. Considering that he is a significant figure in the intellectual world, I suppose you will ignore him and explain that no one ever gave credence to anything he said or did.

It's the skeptical way.
Click to expand...

The skeptical way is to provide evidence for his claims. He has none. Sachs is fellatiating the old JFK-CT belief that the Vietnam War would not have happened if JFK had lived (unkonwn), and that the CIA wanted the US to get deeper into Vietnam (a lie, based on multiple documents wherein the CIA advised the US to keep a small footprint only).

Sachs is a smart man who is also full of crap.
 
Sachs also claims that the Maidan Revolution was actually a CIA-backed coup, and that the US forced Putin to attack Ukraine. :rolleyes:

ETA: And he also says that if JFK were President today, he'd end the war by appeasement. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Cosmic Yak said:
Seagull post, or are we going to get any evidence?
Click to expand...


The fact that it's been two weeks should give you a clue. :rolleyes:

Further, as you undoubtedly suspect, there's no evidence to be had. This is just a ridiculous appeal to authority fallacy. Sachs is a neo-appeaser (in the same vein as John Mearsheimer) who wants to pretend that his hero JFK favored appeasing the Soviets and was killed by the CIA because of it.
 
Axxman300 said:
The skeptical way is to provide evidence for his claims. He has none. Sachs is fellatiating the old JFK-CT belief that the Vietnam War would not have happened if JFK had lived (unkonwn), and that the CIA wanted the US to get deeper into Vietnam (a lie, based on multiple documents wherein the CIA advised the US to keep a small footprint only).

Sachs is a smart man who is also full of crap.
Click to expand...

...and has left a trail of disastrous projects in his wake.
 
Axxman300 said:
The skeptical way is to provide evidence for his claims. He has none. Sachs is fellatiating the old JFK-CT belief that the Vietnam War would not have happened if JFK had lived (unkonwn), and that the CIA wanted the US to get deeper into Vietnam (a lie, based on multiple documents wherein the CIA advised the US to keep a small footprint only).

Sachs is a smart man who is also full of crap.
Click to expand...

Everyone else is quoting you with an add on, so those individuals that believe any narrative other than LHO shot the President. Anything else is BS.
I watched the second Oliver Stone film on JFK and felt the horses dragging the audience through nonsense, but grifters just have to grift.
 
Axxman300 said:
and that the CIA wanted the US to get deeper into Vietnam (a lie, based on multiple documents wherein the CIA advised the US to keep a small footprint only).
Click to expand...

You mean to tell me that the CIA tends not to be a big fan of large-scale US military deployments, which are under DOD and involve a lot of Americans with guns and other weapons going into countries that the CIA wants to operate in clandestinely?


Never would have guessed. :D
 
bknight said:
Everyone else is quoting you with an add on, so those individuals that believe any narrative other than LHO shot the President. Anything else is BS.
I watched the second Oliver Stone film on JFK and felt the horses dragging the audience through nonsense, but grifters just have to grift.
Click to expand...

Stone's "JFK" is a great science fiction movie. Probably his last good film before he lost his ability to field a decent script. Kostner is fantastic. Great John Williams soundtrack. But other than JFK and Oswald getting shot there are few facts.
 
I was so captivated by this movie, back in the day. I really thought Stone was on to something. Now I look back in embarrassment, at the time when I tried to convince my parents - who had lived through the event - that Stone was onto something.
 
Axxman300 said:
Stone's "JFK" is a great science fiction movie. Probably his last good film before he lost his ability to field a decent script. Kostner is fantastic. Great John Williams soundtrack. But other than JFK and Oswald getting shot there are few facts.
Click to expand...
This film so bombastically presented a conspiracy theory so ridiculous that it may have already convinced me that Oswald must have acted alone, some time before I read—inhaled—Reclaiming History (book and CD) when it came into the Nation office offered for review. But I didn't watch JFK in a theater—waited till it was on network TV—because I had rented Stone's movie on the Doors and found it so hokey that I wasn't gonna pay to see another Stone movie. And by the time I saw it, I may have already read about the many… inaccuracies (to be kind) of which Stone's tale was woven.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I was so captivated by this movie, back in the day. I really thought Stone was on to something. Now I look back in embarrassment, at the time when I tried to convince my parents - who had lived through the event - that Stone was onto something.
Click to expand...

As I have said before in this thread, I used to watch this movie around 22 November every year, just to remind myself what an idiot I was for ever believing this crap.

One of the key things that turned me was involved with the scene where Garrison describes how the "magic bullet" is supposed to have performed all the aerobatics as it changed direction to do all the damage it did to JFK and Gov. Connally. Then, I saw a graphic showing a photo and diagram of the positions in which the two of them were seated. The photo clearly showed Connally, not sitting directly in front of JFK at the same height, but in front, slightly to the left and very slightly lower. JFK was as far to the right as he could get, with his elbow on the outside of the door - Gov Connally was in from the door, and turned slightly to his right.

jfk-sequence-still2.jpg


Once I saw that, and the graphic, it became obvious that the so-called magic bullet wasn't magic at all, and could have done all that damage by traveling in a near straight line.

SBT.gif
 
smartcooky said:
As I have said before in this thread, I used to watch this movie around 22 November every year, just to remind myself what an idiot I was for ever believing this crap.

One of the key things that turned me was involved with the scene where Garrison describes how the "magic bullet" is supposed to have performed all the aerobatics as it changed direction to do all the damage it did to JFK and Gov. Connally. Then, I saw a graphic showing a photo and diagram of the positions in which the two of them were seated. The photo clearly showed Connally, not sitting directly in front of JFK at the same height, but in front, slightly to the left and very slightly lower. JFK was as far to the right as he could get, with his elbow on the outside of the door - Gov Connally was in from the door, and turned slightly to his right.

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/04ao5t02w9mfl84knod6y/jfk-sequence-still2.jpg?rlkey=96yfd1m57g4zweex33xtyo4gu&raw=1[/qimg]

Once I saw that, and the graphic, it became obvious that the so-called magic bullet wasn't magic at all, and could have done all that damage by traveling in a near straight line.

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/ad8w0ljg0ozb30w/SBT.gif?raw=1[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Personally, I heard that Oliver's first movie was a CT and avoided it for many years, before watching on TV, same with the last. Therefore, I never heard the phrase magic bullet until I started maybe on this thread or its ancestors.
 
The one advantage to have viewed "JFK" in the theater was watching the Zapruder Film on the big screen. As awful as it is, the detail is clear enough to show the bullets struck from behind, and there is no "gaping hole" in the back of the President's head, which is clearly visible in the final frames. In fact the the Zapruder Film works against Garrison's narrative of what you see, and makes him a liar.
 
smartcooky said:
As I have said before in this thread, I used to watch this movie around 22 November every year, just to remind myself what an idiot I was for ever believing this crap.

One of the key things that turned me was involved with the scene where Garrison describes how the "magic bullet" is supposed to have performed all the aerobatics as it changed direction to do all the damage it did to JFK and Gov. Connally. Then, I saw a graphic showing a photo and diagram of the positions in which the two of them were seated. The photo clearly showed Connally, not sitting directly in front of JFK at the same height, but in front, slightly to the left and very slightly lower. JFK was as far to the right as he could get, with his elbow on the outside of the door - Gov Connally was in from the door, and turned slightly to his right.

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/04ao5t02w9mfl84knod6y/jfk-sequence-still2.jpg?rlkey=96yfd1m57g4zweex33xtyo4gu&raw=1[/qimg]

Once I saw that, and the graphic, it became obvious that the so-called magic bullet wasn't magic at all, and could have done all that damage by traveling in a near straight line.

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/ad8w0ljg0ozb30w/SBT.gif?raw=1[/qimg]
Click to expand...

That part about putting them in the wrong places in the car is a Cyril Wecht thing. This guy was supposed to be some great medical examiner/forensics guy, but once you realize how badly he botched that reinactment, you know he's just completely unreliable. It's so flippin obvious that you need to have the actors in the right places, but he couldn't be bothered with such silly details. And, as a result, he got a silly conclusion.
 
pgwenthold said:
That part about putting them in the wrong places in the car is a Cyril Wecht thing. This guy was supposed to be some great medical examiner/forensics guy, but once you realize how badly he botched that reinactment, you know he's just completely unreliable. It's so flippin obvious that you need to have the actors in the right places, but he couldn't be bothered with such silly details. And, as a result, he got a silly conclusion.
Click to expand...

There was a few years back some individual, can't remember his name, that put a computer made diagram of how those two were seated and somewhat later another CT made his video "debunking" the first and I don't remember his name either. It was obvious to me that the second guy didn't know what he was doing and made a fool of himself in his attempt.
Bottom line they do line up and the magic bullet is nothing of magic just straight line of site travel to injure two men. There was also another buy who made a video with gel that was a simile for human flesh as to whether the bullet could have gone through both guys and the evidence was yes it could.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom